Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <rajiva () cisco com>wrote:

> Chris,
>
> That's an incorrect draft pointer. Here is the correct one -
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map
> tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp
great, but still a draft, not an official standard.


> And no, Cisco has no IPR on MAP wrt the above drafts.
'yet'... they don't have to officially declare until WGLC... and REALLY not
until the draft is sent up to the IESG, but doing it early is certainly
nice so that the WG has an opportunity to say: "yea, IPR here is going to
cause a problem with interop/etc".


> Cheers,
> Rajiv
>
> PS: Please do note that the IPRs mostly get nullified once they are
> through the IETF standards process.
that's not been my experience.. see flow-spec for a great example. 'mostly
nullified' is .. disingenuous at best.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
> Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:41 PM
> To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva () cisco com>
> Cc: Chuck Anderson <cra () WPI EDU>, nanog list <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
>
> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
> > <rajiva () cisco com> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, it certainly is (per the IETF IPR rules).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > which rfcs? I can find a draft in softwire:
> >   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mdt-softwire-map-translation-01
> >
> >
> > and a reference to this in wikipedia:
> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanisms#MAP
> >
> >
> > which says: "...(MAP) is a Cisco IPv6 transition proposal..."
> >
> >
> > so.. err, we won't see this in juniper gear since:
> >  1) not a standard
> >  2) encumbered by IPR issues
> >
> >
> > weee!
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the clarity, Chuck.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rajiv
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chuck Anderson <cra () WPI EDU>
> > Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:18 PM
> > To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva () cisco com>
> >
> > Cc: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>, nanog list
> > <nanog () nanog org>
> > Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
> >
> > > I think he means patent encumbered.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 07:13:11PM +0000, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
> > > > Chris,
> > > >
> > > > UmmmŠ you mean the IPv6 and IPv4 inter-dependency when you say IP
> > > > encumbered?
> > > >
> > > > If so, the answer is Yes. v6 addressing doesn't need to change to
> > > > accommodate this IPv4 A+P encoding.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Rajiv
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
> > > > Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 2:28 PM
> > > > To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva () cisco com>
> > > > Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>, nanog list <nanog () nanog org
> >
> > > > Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
> > > > > <rajiva () cisco com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, MAP (T-Translation or E-Encap mode) is implemented on two regular
> > > > > routers that I know of - ASR9K and ASR1K. Without that, you are right
> > > > that
> > > > > MAP wouldn't have been as beneficial as claimed.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > glad it's cross platform... is it also IP encumbered so it'll remain
> > > > just
> > > > > as 'cross platform' ?